I like shooting photos on my Nikon Z5ii using an array of manual focus Nikon AI and AI-s lenses, which lack electronic contacts and thus have no optical modules in DxO PhotoLab 9.
I just discovered that for these manual focus lenses, there is a really astonishing difference in sharpness between RAW photos processed using DxO PhotoLab and those processed with NX Studio. For example, I just bought a Nikkor 200mm f/4 AI lens. When processed using NX Studio (or even just taking the JPEGs straight out of camera), this lens looks stunningly sharp — probably out-resolving the 24 megapixel sensor. But when processed in DxO PhotoLab, the resulting photos look much, much softer — so much so that I initially thought I’d made a bad decision in buying the lens!
I really want to process my RAWs in DxO PhotoLab because the colours look better, it’s much faster, and has way more sophisticated controls. But I have to figure out a way around this sharpness issue!
As far as I can see, there is only one tool for adjusting sharpness for lenses that lack an optical module, the Unsharp Mask, and I have not had any luck improving the sharpness with this tool. Even ramping it up to 200% makes little perceivable difference.
Is there some set of tools that I’m not aware of in DxO that make my photos look as sharp as those output by NX Studio? It would be disappointing if I had to resort to NX Studio whenever my lens lacked an optical module.
Here is the output from DxO (obviously compare sharpness at 100%):
Going by your pics as they appear in the forum, I don’t see much difference in sharpness among them. Maybe in the branches, but not so much in the buds. The differences are more in contrast and saturation - or tonality, one might say. Try raising the microcontrast a bit in PhotoLab or maybe even add a small amount of ClearView Plus. Yes, with optics modules (allowing use of Lens Sharpness adjustments and DeepPRIME NR) you can easily get sharper images with fewer artifacts. However, I think PhotoLab can still produce great output with an unsharp mask and other tools.
If you’re still seeing what looks like true sharpness deficiencies, please share smaller crops at 100% and your PhotoLab settings.
That’s a 50 years old lens (release date 1977?), so don’t expect DxO to have ever measured this lens. If you call it “stunningly sharp”, surely you haven’t seen any sharp lens yet. Check Z135/1.8S on 45mpx. Not to mention that “Nikkor 200mm f/4 AI” wasn’t only about sharpness – NIKKOR The Thousand and One Nights No.87 | NIKKOR - The Thousand and One Nights | Nikon Consumer
In your comparison, you’ve probably used Landscape Picture Control in NX Studio (perhaps derived from the camera settings, which NX Studio uses automatically) or a tweaked Standard profile, while the PhotoLab version looks more like a Neutral, with much less saturation, and that affects sharpness perception. Both Landscape and Standard PictureControl use a considerable amout of a variant of unsharp mask. Hence you are comparing apples to oranges. I would say that DxO and NX Studio are on par in this case, even though NX Studio probably has some “knowledge” about this particular lens. As others said above, the perceived “sharpness” can be risen using PL Microcontrast, Fine-contrast (FilmPack license required), perhaps Unsharp mask (I think never used the latter with positive settings in PL ). You may also use ClearView to get increased “sharpness” as a side-effect (both PC Standard and Landscape use their version). Selective Tones may also change your sharpness perception.
But these are all workarounds for old, unsupported lenses. I get “cleanest” results using supported lenses and Lens Sharpness Optimization – no halos, no rough look.
Off-topic: My oldest Nikkors are 16/2.8D Fisheye (1993 design) and AF 135/2D DC (1995 model), supported by DxO. Both gain a lot using Lens Sharpness Optimization, which is common for “unsharp” lenses. The second lens had an opinion of one of the sharpest lenses at the time, but it’s nowhere near to AF-S 105/1.4E, not to mention Z135/1.8S. That said, sharpness is by far not the only thing one should be after.
EDIT: DOF used was too shallow, so some parts are unsharp “by design”. The background was far and there was a lot of light, enough to stop down the aperture considerably. Which makes the initial question about sharpness even more weird…
). You may also use ClearView to get increased “sharpness” as a side-effect (both PC Standard and Landscape use their version). Selective Tones may also change your sharpness perception.